↓ Skip to main content

Surgical interventions for high-grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Surgical interventions for high-grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007928.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonali Kaushik, Litha Pepas, Andy Nordin, Andrew Bryant, Heather O Dickinson, Theresa A Lawrie

Abstract

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1.Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising, particularly in the younger age group. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for the surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat the symptoms and exclude any underlying malignancy, with the continued aim of preserving the vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity, thus impacting he individual's quality of life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 29 25%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 25 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,383,517
of 14,656,415 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,153
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,294
of 187,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,656,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.